Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Kahn Tolchinsky

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Kahn Tolchinsky

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with her husband, whose article was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Tolchinsky, this is a heavily advertorialized biography of a person whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. Just like David's article, this was an overgrown linkfarm of WP:ELNO violations to the self-published websites of people and organizations named in the article, until I cleaned it up just now — and the actual footnoted references are primary sources, not notability-supporting media coverage. As always, the notability test hinges less on what the article says, and more on how well the article references what it says to reliable sources. I also still suspect some form of conflict of interest editing here, as Debra and David were both created by the same user, and the only other contributions that user ahs ever made to Wikipedia at all that didn't directly involve the surname "Tolchinsky" still pertained to a colleague of theirs — so even if the article can actually be salvaged with better sources than I've been able to find, it would still have to be fundamentally overhauled for WP:NOTADVERT compliance anyway. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has done stuff, but nobody has noted it, so not notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails to meet the GNG. Blogs, IMDB, and non-independent sources are all I see.Sandals1 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article doesn't adequately demonstrate that she passes WP:GNG or WP:PROF, doesn't include sufficient references and isn't very well written, but it could possibly be a borderline case of notability. --Tataral (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.